Office of the Press Secretary
(Chappaqua, New York)
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release November 4, 2000

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

Today, I am disapproving H.R. 4392, the "Intelligence Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001," because of one badly flawed provision that
would have made a felony of unauthorized disclosures of classified
information. Although well intentioned, that provision is overbroad
and may unnecessarily chill legitimate activities that are at the heart
of a democracy.

I agree that unauthorized disclosures can be extraordinarily
harmful to United States national security interests and that far too
many such disclosures occur. I have been particularly concerned about
their potential effects on the sometimes irreplaceable intelligence
sources and methods on which we rely to acquire accurate and timely
information I need in order to make the most appropriate decisions on
matters of national security. Unauthorized disclosures damage our
intelligence relationships abroad, compromise intelligence gathering,
jeopardize lives, and increase the threat of terrorism. As Justice
Stewart stated in the Pentagon Papers case, "it is elementary that the
successful conduct of international diplomacy and the maintenance of an
effective national defense require both confidentiality and secrecy.
Other nations can hardly deal with this Nation in an atmosphere of
mutual trust unless they can be assured that their confidences will be
kept . . . and the development of considered and intelligent
international policies would be impossible if those charged with their
formulation could not communicate with each other freely." Those who
disclose classified information inappropriately thus commit a gross
breach of the public trust and may recklessly put our national security
at risk. To the extent that existing sanctions have proven insufficient
to address and deter unauthorized disclosures, they should be
strengthened. What is in dispute is not the gravity of the problem, but
the best way to respond to it.

In addressing this issue, we must never forget that the free flow
of information is essential to a democratic society. Justice Stewart
also wrote in the Pentagon Papers case that "the only effective
restraint upon executive policy in the areas of national defense and
international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an
informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the
values of democratic government."

Justice Brandeis reminded us that "those who won our independence
believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this
should be a fundamental principle of the American government." His
words caution that we must always tread carefully when considering
measures that may limit public discussion -- even when those measures
are intended to achieve laudable, indeed necessary, goals.

As President, therefore, it is my obligation to protect not only
our Government's vital information from improper disclosure, but also to
protect the rights of citizens to receive the information necessary for
democracy to work. Furthering these two goals requires a careful
balancing, which must be assessed in light of our system of classifying
information over a range of categories. This legislation does not
achieve the proper balance. For example, there is a serious risk that
this legis-lation would tend to have a chilling effect on those who
engage in legitimate activities. A desire to avoid the risk that their
good faith choice of words -- their exercise of judgment -- could become
the subject of a criminal referral for prosecution might discourage
Government officials from engaging even in appropriate public
discussion, press briefings, or other legitimate official activities.
Similarly, the legislation may unduly restrain the ability of former
Government officials to teach, write, or engage in any activity aimed at
building public understanding of complex issues. Incurring such risks
is unnecessary and inappropriate in a society built on freedom of
expression and the consent of the governed and is particularly
inadvisable in a context in which the range of classified materials is
so extensive. In such circumstances, this criminal provision would, in
my view, create an undue chilling effect.

The problem is compounded because this provision was passed without
benefit of public hearings -- a particular concern given that it is the
public that this law seeks ultimately to protect. The Administration
shares the process burden since its deliberations lacked the
thoroughness this provision warranted, which in turn led to a failure to
apprise the Congress of the concerns I am expressing today.

I deeply appreciate the sincere efforts of Members of Congress to
address the problem of unauthorized disclosures and I fully share their
commitment. When the Congress returns, I encourage it to send me this
bill with this provision deleted and I encourage the Congress as soon as
possible to pursue a more narrowly drawn provision tested in public
hearings so that those they represent can also be heard on this
important issue.

Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of
H.R. 4392 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the
Constitution, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its
becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition
to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power
to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress, to avoid
litigation, I am also sending H.R. 4392 to the House of Representatives
with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I have vetoed the
measure.